Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws, Behaviors, Etc. that Appear TO YOU to Violate US Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Laws, Behaviors, Etc. that Appear TO YOU to Violate US Constitution

    I thought I would start a thread on laws, behaviors, regulations, behaviors, etc. that seem TO YOU to violate the US Constitution. I mean in this sense say of the Protestant Reformation, where each person would read The Bible themselves and understand it themselves, without priests or Harvard Law School grads telling them what it means.

    I start off with the 14 year+ state of emergency declared by Bush 43 after 9/11 and renewed every year since then by Bush 43 and Obama. In 1976 a law was passed to limit these "states of emergency" including ones from 1917, 1933, and 1950. (1976 National Emergencies Act ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/state-o...ricans/5338508

    excerpt of above

    Specifically, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House.
    (Or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans.
    DeFazio concluded: “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.
    University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott points out that – whether or not COG plans are still in effect – the refusal of the executive branch to disclose their details to Congress means that the Constitutional system of checks and balances has already been gravely injured:
    If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.
    To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.
    Indeed, continuity of government plans are specifically defined to do the following:
    • Top leaders of the “new government” called for in the COG would entirely or largely go into hiding, and would govern in hidden locations

    • Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what was happening

    • Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums

    • The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.amtvmedia.com/obama-renew...aimed-by-bush/

    excerpt from above link

    Obama noted the state of emergency needed to be continued, but did not offer any date or estimate as to when, if ever, it might be lifted.
    “I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism,” he said.
    The state of emergency has now been in force for almost 14 years — as long as US participation in World War II, the Korean war and the Vietnam War combined.

  • #2
    The best example I can think of is desegregation where the courts unconstitutional imposed what can only be described as taxation to pay for busing, and public schools. I also think this is a good example of where the ends justified the means.

    Many people want to live in a black and white world where "so let it be written so let it be done" is all they need to know. In the above case the people had rejected desegregation and assumed that living in a democracy they were within their rights. What they didn't understand is that the U.S. constitution was written to prevent the majority from abusing the rights of the minority. The founding fathers were not stupid enough to think that a democracy was a perfect form of government. The courts rightfully concluded that in the hierarchy of rights that individual rights out weighed the peoples right to self determination.

    The ends justify the means argument is only valid when individual rights are so grievously threatened that there can be no question that force is required. Systematic oppression is probably not enough reason to justify resorting to the violent authority of a centralized government but if that oppression involves life and liberty then the symbols of that oppression become fair game.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #3
      If we put the Home Land Security issues into historical focus we could ask if the internment of Japanese Americans was justified. The similarities surround the assessment of relative threat. I think in both case it was nearly impossible to rationally evaluate the extent that the actions of the government were proportionate to the threat. In hind sight we can see that Japan was never much of a threat to the mainland. If the terrorist on the other hand got ahold of half a dozen nuclear weapons that constitutes a considerable threat and most people would agree that extraordinary measures are justified.

      Although it has often gotten me called a heartless bastard I believe that most issues can be reduced to cost benefit. For most people giving up a few liberties is worth believing they will not wake up to find millions of people dead because some terrorist organization exploited weaknesses in an open society. So by allowing some constitutional improprieties we avoid the immediate risk of being dead. The long term risks are much harder to evaluate. We do not want to become a police state but by examining the constitution of the U.S.S.R we can see that a constitution offers little real protection.

      In the end we rely on the human decency of our police to protect our individual freedoms. That is why I say Obama has done more harm to are long term security than any other president. He has justified the cultism of our police forces by unwarranted criticism and he has the worse record in history on the treatment of whistleblowers in American history. In the end it is not external forces that secure that our institutions are just but by way of the morality and decency of individuals who are willing to step forward and report abuses.

      The question remains if the current terrorist threat represents sufficient costs to justify constitutional violations. I would come down on the side of those who said the potential damage that soviet sympathizers represented did not justify the actions of men like McCarthy and Nixon. If you have to give up your basic decency to defend yourself perhaps you need a new plan.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        You mean, Presidential abuse of power?

        Any alien whom HHS determines to have “a communicable disease of public health significance” shall not be admitted to the United States. When President Obama took office, there were eight diseases classified as such, but in 2009 his administration removed HIV/AIDS from the list. Now the Obama HHS has announced it will also remove chancroid, granuloma inguinale and lymphogranuloma venereum from its list of communicable diseases “of public health significance.” The three STDs in question are found mostly in Third-World countries.

        http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/doctors-r...o-exotic-stds/

        Would-be gun grabbers are invariably the products of urban areas in which gun ownership is not part of the culture; it is the rare exception. Their knowledge of guns, gun owners, and the issues, habits, and traditions that drive gun-ownership is miniscule. It never extends beyond the caricatures portrayed in popular culture. Liberals naively believe that their motivation for stripping cultural and intellectual inferiors of their favorite toys would be a desire for public safety; in reality, their motivations are purely a matter of sub-cultural group interaction and acceptance.
        http://alternative-right.blogspot.co...and-other.html




        The government of the United States is totally, desperately, hopelessly bankrupt. And they become even more insolvent with each passing year. In their decline from power, bankrupt governments rely on a simple playbook to desperately try to maintain the status quo by every means available. They destroy freedom. They impose a police and surveillance state. They seize assets. They wage campaigns of violence and intimidation. They impose capital controls. Cash controls. People controls. Whatever it takes. This time is not different. We’re not talking about what ‘might happen’ or ‘could happen’. We’re talking about what IS happening.
        https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/...tements-18735/

        How's that for starters?
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #5
          From 2005, A Congressional Research Service report entitled, Martial Law and National Emergency

          https://fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21024.pdf

          Comment


          • #6
            Obamacare imposing a tax for not buying a product. Not even arguing about whether it is a tax or penalty, that Obamacare imposes a fee / tax on people for not purchasing health care fits.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Obamacare imposing a tax for not buying a product. Not even arguing about whether it is a tax or penalty, that Obamacare imposes a fee / tax on people for not purchasing health care fits.
              You are going to have to explain that in a bit more detail.

              The precedent for requiring insurance was long established for vehicle registration. The arguments are largely the same as it is in the best interest of society that liability can not be passed on to third parties. In the case of medical care everyone buying insurance is essentially paying for those too irresponsible to do so. Just as we do not restrict people in their free movement we do not deny people health care irrespective of their ability to pay. To be fair we could require people to carry several million dollars in liability insurance in order to operate an automobile. Most people however recognize that it is not in the interest of society to discriminate by means testing in such an important part of life. Like wise society does not expect means testing in health care.

              We could live in a world in which the poor simply starve to death or die for lack of health care. In a Darwinian sense I suppose you could even call that natural justice. Most of us however do not want to live in that kind of world. The world we want to live in is one where people pay what they can afford to pay for health care and do not take advantage of the generosity of medical systems when it is convenient to them.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                The government funding party primaries that are only open to party members.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  You are going to have to explain that in a bit more detail.

                  The precedent for requiring insurance was long established for vehicle registration. The arguments are largely the same as it is in the best interest of society that liability can not be passed on to third parties. In the case of medical care everyone buying insurance is essentially paying for those too irresponsible to do so. Just as we do not restrict people in their free movement we do not deny people health care irrespective of their ability to pay. To be fair we could require people to carry several million dollars in liability insurance in order to operate an automobile. Most people however recognize that it is not in the interest of society to discriminate by means testing in such an important part of life. Like wise society does not expect means testing in health care.
                  Vehicle insurance is a state mandate, not a federal one. In fact, almost all insurance is state mandated, not federal. That the federal government has become the insurer (underwriter) of most mortgages, all flood insurance, and of banks, among other types of insurance, is also highly questionable as Constitutional.


                  We could live in a world in which the poor simply starve to death or die for lack of health care. In a Darwinian sense I suppose you could even call that natural justice. Most of us however do not want to live in that kind of world. The world we want to live in is one where people pay what they can afford to pay for health care and do not take advantage of the generosity of medical systems when it is convenient to them.

                  Or, we could live in a world where health care is Socialized, rationed, and often substandard because of the cost to government. Sure, everyone in Cuba has "free" health care but for the vast majority of Cubans that care is pretty mediocre.
                  So, which is more preferable? Darwinian health care or Machiavellian health care?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    TSA and searches without cause.

                    Not all health care is in Cuba.

                    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=91971406

                    Most Patients Happy With German Health Care
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                      TSA and searches without cause.

                      Not all health care is in Cuba.

                      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=91971406

                      Most Patients Happy With German Health Care
                      Doesn't change the argument. Most Americans with health insurance are happy with their plan. So? The difference is with private insurance or pay-as-you-go you choose what health care you want and need. With socialized health care the government decides what you get... Or don't get.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Doesn't change the argument. Most Americans with health insurance are happy with their plan. So? The difference is with private insurance or pay-as-you-go you choose what health care you want and need. With socialized health care the government decides what you get... Or don't get.
                        Your Ignorance is showing.

                        I and my wife choose what doctors, what hospitals and the government plays no role on that decision.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The real problem here is how much of your freedom is a result of the protection that society affords.

                          In a totally free society we would just battle it out to see who gets what. That is obviously not the kind of freedom most of us want.

                          None of us earn our health care because it is the product of countless researchers, doctors, nurses, and administrator that no individual is has the resources to assemble. It does not exist just in the present either because it is also the result of countless generations of people that advanced civilization.

                          The question is how much of the debt that you owe civilization can you afford to pay. None of us have invented a vaccine or developed a cure for cancer. The best we can do is to be committed to civilization. That means that we act in a civilized manner not just in matters of personal relations but in the financial realm as well.

                          Like it or not civilization exists because people joined into ever larger states to crush the naturally destructive competitions between smaller groups. Competition is good but it must always be restrained by the agreed on rules. When it comes to health care the agreed on rule is that nobody goes without treatment how we get there is of course a matter of debate.

                          I don't want universal health care because I care about people in the way Liberals insist you must to be civilized I want it because I want to live in a civilized nation. In a similar way people that cannot afford health care don't want equality platitudes they want care. Where TAG is right is that pathological empathetic altruism will be the death of us all.

                          Liberals will simply not accept that many people are poor because they are shiftless and lazy parasites. The only other group that comes close to this level of sociopathy are the Banksters. The reason we can't have a competitive health care system is because the top and bottom of our society is full of parasitic sociopaths. There are also too many self serving narcissistic and culturally suicidal Liberals who's only contribution to society is making up silly rules for everyone else but themselves to follow.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To me the biggest threat to Constitutionality are the elements of The National Security State/Military Industrial Complex who are in a position to undermine it. NSA, FEMA, COG, etc.

                            But certainly the people who think that the laws aren't the most important thing - that they know better what is right, the laws be damned - are dangerous. Many of these subscribe to Critical Legal Theory/Critical Legal Studies. Many come from elite law schools.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_legal_studies



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              You are going to have to explain that in a bit more detail.

                              The precedent for requiring insurance was long established for vehicle registration. The arguments are largely the same as it is in the best interest of society that liability can not be passed on to third parties. In the case of medical care everyone buying insurance is essentially paying for those too irresponsible to do so. Just as we do not restrict people in their free movement we do not deny people health care irrespective of their ability to pay. To be fair we could require people to carry several million dollars in liability insurance in order to operate an automobile. Most people however recognize that it is not in the interest of society to discriminate by means testing in such an important part of life. Like wise society does not expect means testing in health care.
                              1. You are not required to buy a car. Fact are, a lot of people, such as teens, the elderly, and those living in urban settings where everything that they need is close by, don't even own a car.

                              2. If you buy a car, you are not required to register it, license it, or purchase insurance so long as that car is used on private property.

                              3. Registration, License, and insurance is only required when you use that car on a public road or highway.

                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              We could live in a world in which the poor simply starve to death or die for lack of health care. In a Darwinian sense I suppose you could even call that natural justice. Most of us however do not want to live in that kind of world. The world we want to live in is one where people pay what they can afford to pay for health care and do not take advantage of the generosity of medical systems when it is convenient to them.
                              Hospital emergency rooms are required by law to treat the sick and injured with no compensation mandated. This is why they charge the insurance companies and individuals such outrageous rates for their service and supplies used.

                              There are also charities, such as St Jude Hospitals, that cater to the poor.

                              Now, be sure that you submit your (Illegal) Form 1095-B proving that you have health insurance when you file your 2015 income tax, or else, you can start paying a tax for your failure to purchase health insurance.
                              “Breaking News,”

                              “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X